Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rees


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep --JAranda &#124; yeah 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

William Rees
A professor, and no doubt a worthy one. But I see little notability here. Not quite a speedy delete, the presidency of an academic society is a claim of notability, but iMO a mild one. Alos, much of the text is said to be exerpte from the subject's course notes which makes that section a probable copyvio. Delete. DES (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * After rethinking the matter, reading the comments of others here, and seeing the revised article, change my vote to Keep. I am particualrly glad that the phrase which suggested a copyvio is gone, and the reasons why the professor is notabel are now much more clear from the article. i was too quick on the trigger with this one. DES (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep (except any copyvio of course). Founding member and recent past-President of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics, director of ‘Environment and Resource Planning’ School, Senior Killam Research Prize, The Vancouver Sun recognized him as one of British Columbia’s top “public intellectuals.”  Dlyons493 19:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I cannot believe that DES would do this. I just created this article and am actively working on it (as I have with dozens of articles over the course of my two years with Wikipedia).  Of course it is not up to standard yet, it is less than one day old. As to Bill Rees not being notable:  The fact that he is the originator of ecological footprint analysis alone is sufficient to qualify him for an article.  However, as Dlyons493 points out, Rees has shown leadership in the fields of ecological economics and sustainable development and is well-recognized for that throughout North America and many other parts of the world.  With respect to copyvio: Nothing I have done violates "fair use" requirements (I did, after all, include my sources and provided abundant notes as to what I was doing).  However, I've removed most of the copied material and will work on it off-line.  Sunray 20:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I was somewhat peeved when I wrote the first three sentences above. I appreciate DES's second thoughts.  Sunray 06:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I was somewhat peeved when I wrote the first three sentences above. I appreciate DES's second thoughts.  Sunray 06:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ecological footprint is somewhat notable, but the notability does not transfer to its originator. And I certainly don't appreciate all these upset comments about DES' motivation for AfD:ing. The notability of an article subject is relevant from the moment of its creation. The vote here is on the suitability of the inclusion of the article, not the quality of its contents. / Peter Isotalo 23:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, worthy professor, received awards and honors, left an ecological footprint in history. Kappa 01:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep seems significantly more notable than the average professor. Pburka 01:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes my notability test for profs. -- BD2412 talk 01:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see notability.  I also don't believe in deleting young articles without giving them time to grow unless they're nonsense which this is not.  PRueda29 02:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep encyclopedic, notable. WCFrancis 04:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be more notable than an average college professor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.